engormix
search
search
We will be present at:
August 7, 2022 to August 11, 2022
Paris, Ile-de-France, France

Mycotoxin-deactivator:In vitro or In vivo, How should we choose?

Video information
See more
remove_red_eye 428 forum 10 bar_chart Statistics share
Share :
close
May 4, 2022
Dear all, at first we need to select: what is deactivation? Is it destroying? Or binding? Or we need to know how effective is liver P-450 in vivo against mycotoxins? How can we use binders if these binders can chemically react with vitamins? What is alternative? Grain without mycotoxins: is it possible? Probably not, and this is problem for everybody. Let's discuss!
Reply
June 2, 2022

Dear Dr. Marchenkov, thanks for your comment. For the binders we are speaking about a binding mechanism. Dietary supplementation with non-nutritive mycotoxin-adsorbents is by far the most practical and most widely studied method for reducing the effects of mycotoxin exposure. Of course, an effective mycotoxin adsorbent should be a nutritionally inert adsorbent, which when incorporated into contaminated feed, should prevent or limit toxin absorption from the gastrointestinal tract of animals, and carryover of mycotoxins into animal products, such as aflatoxin M1 in milk. To study the non-specific binding with important nutrients (such as vitamins), in vitro trials can be performed. These trials are useful select promising binders for further in vivo test. There are different strategies (physical or chemical) to reduce the contamination of mycotoxins in feed, but most of them show different drawbacks with restricted practical applications.

Reply
June 1, 2022
Vito D’Ascanio Dear Dr. Vito, you are absolutely right. Of course, the theoretical basis for the action of mycotoxin sorbents is better developed than for many other anti-mycotoxin agents. This is not surprising, because the basics of sorption were developed by classical chemistry, and sorption / desorption processes are widely used in industry and agriculture, as well as for scientific purposes, for example, in chromatography. Considering the features of the chemical formula of mycotoxins, we can conclude that in terms of molecular weight, they and vitamins are in very close ranges. However, the quantitative content of mycotoxins in grain is much lower than that of vitamins, and therefore the sorbent (unless, of course, it is chemically modified for some specific mycotoxin) will first absorb the substance whose concentration is higher. Detailed experiments on this issue have not been carried out, because there are a lot of various vitamins and mycotoxins in nature, and buyers are used to using sorbents they have long known, and the price of vitamins, in the total cost of feed, is not so high. Experiments using microorganisms were an alternative to chemical sorbents. The pioneer in these methods was the American company Alltech, which found that yeasts have the ability to absorb many types of mycotoxins by the membrane of their cells. Further research has shown that certain strains of bacteria can break down mycotoxins with the help of specific enzymes. If you are interested in these questions, I could send you photographs obtained in the laboratory of our company, where our specialists managed to select suitable strains. At the same time, we focused on the effect of bacteria, but the mechanism of their destructive action, it seems to me, has not yet been investigated.
Reply
Fernando Tamames Fernando Tamames
President at Special Nutrients
Special Nutrients Special Nutrients
Miami, Florida, United States
May 5, 2022
Dear All

It is surprising that in 2022 we are making questions that were resolved in 1987 /1988

In vitro trials will never prove that a product will work in vivo.
This was proven in 1988 with Activated Charcoal it captured 100% of the mycotoxin in vitro but it did not work in vivo protecting the target organ.

Deactivation - Biotransformation - Adsorption

The best explanation is the rumen of a cow. A rumen can biotransformation and/or deactivate mycotoxin as long as you have perfect conditions
When stress, acidosis, use of antibiotics, bacterial infections, not well balance feed ocurre this biotransformation / deactivation is reduced significantly. In the case of adsorption the same way that the clay comes in the same way that the clay com out and it is not affected by conditions in the GI tract. The key factor on adsorption is the quality , type and process that is done to the clay so it is capable of adsorbing one and or multiple toxins.


Also you need to differentiate products that reduce the secondary effect caused by a mycotoxin vs product that by adsorbing the mycotoxin are capable of Protecting the Target organ that the mycotoxin affects. This is the only way to differentiate true mycotoxin binders vs hepatoprotections , immunomodulators, probiotics that improve productivity parameters but do not protect the target organs.
etc.

Reply
June 1, 2022

Dear Dr. Tamames, thanks for your comment. As I explained and underlined in my talk, one of the drawbacks of the in vitro models is that "no prediction of in vivo results can be ensure". So I agree with you, but I would like to add something more.


Even if in vitro data are not able, so far, to predict in vivo results, they can give us an insight into the mechanism (on the physico-chemical point of view) of binding between toxins (adsorbate) and binders (adsorbent). Using the isotherms approach, the kinetic approach and in vitro gastro-intestinal models, scientists can have an idea about the performances of the binder towards the adsorbate.

These studies are useful to screen and select "potential binders" to be tested in animals. It is unfeasible to test in animals all binders, due to the cost, ethical constraints and management of in vivo trials.

Furthermore, in vitro trials allow the determination of toxic side effects, including the non-specific adsorption of vitamins, minerals, amino acids and so on. In this way you can have an idea about the behaviour of the binder with molecules different from toxins and if any, you can avoid to test in vivo binders with a very low specificity.

Concerning Activated Charcoal, it is well known its ineffectiveness in vivo, but it is also known its specificity in the vitro models; so no practical uses could be expected. For other binders instead, a correlation has been observed between in vitro and in vivo data on efficacy (it is the case of bentonites and aflatoxins).

Reply
Jonathan Tarus Jonathan Tarus
Student
May 17, 2022

The main goal is to minimize / avoid mycotoxin effects to consumers, thus we should target/point forward to methods which can achieve this goal. Either prevention from the source or deactivation after contamination. This will involve intense research on, say, deactivators under different environmental conditions to ascertain the effectiveness. This means it should be tested both in vitro and in vivo then we make a choice / choices.

Reply
July 16, 2022
Jonathan Tarus Dear Mr.Jonathan, Your logic is absolutely correct. I want to draw your attention to the fact that until now there have been practically no in vitro studies on the possibility of non-specific sorption of vitamins and other molecules with similar molecular weight contained in feed. There are a lot of conversations, usually ending with the conclusion that this sorption is insignificant. On this occasion, I recommend making a solution of vitamin B2 (riboflavin) in water, add some sorbent to it and mix and look at the change in color of the solution. Well, general considerations are also interesting: for example, to what extent can toxic food be used? What toxicity should the feed have in order to be able to say that it is already pointless to use it, it is better to just throw it away, because there will only be losses on the farm with such feed.
Reply
Ram Singh Ram Singh
Ph.D. (Animal Nutrition)
June 6, 2022
For poultry, I have formulated two mycotoxin binders namely Mycodetox B1 and Mycodetox B2 based on my decade's research on chickens, quails, turkeys and ducks. Both the binders ameliorated the adverse effects of aflatoxicosis in poultry and are equally efficaceous in ameliorating aflatoxicosis in these poultry species.
Dr. Ram Singh Bibyan
Reply
July 25, 2022
Hi.
I think the best toxin binder :
1- High absorption power
2-High degree of purity
3-price is right
4- less side effects on host health
Reply
Ram Singh Ram Singh
Ph.D. (Animal Nutrition)
August 3, 2022
For poultry we should choose In Vivo. However for ruminants, we should try both In Vitro as well as In Vivo.
Dr Ram Singh Bibyan
Reply
1
Engormix reserves the right to delete and/or modify comments. See more details
Post a comment
Products
Krave® AP Developed specifically for adult pigs to stimulate appetite ...
Rhodimet®  Methionine is an essential amino acid and a basic stru...
Rovabio® Excel It is a feed additive containing a combination of 19 ac...